Are we using the correct arguments to defend our stance?

Michigan can’t ask the court system to judge the penalties handed down by a conference because the conference has that capability within the bylaws, at least according to the conference.

Michigan has to show that the conference is violating the bylaws.  That’s a very different thing and is the only way the court system holds any power to lend Michigan relief. If the conference is within the bylaws, the court can’t help, no matter how unfair the punishment might be. 

My understanding is Michigan has already made a lot of these very arguments to the Big Ten and included them in their legal filings. But your mistake is believing any of this has to do with logic. The actual argument against Michigan is "today's society is based on mob rule, and the mob doesn't like you because you upset the status quo." We're like an old medieval aristocratic family returned to glory, and our rival family (OSU) has incited the peasants against us. So even though OSU engages in far more corrupt, oppressive acts against the conference, everyone is used to that. But everyone is still adjusting to getting their ass kicked by Michigan on the reg. Which is why it is imperative we keep Harbaugh around at all costs and continue the domination until everyone just accepts it as the norm.

There’s two different arguments happening  at least. First, there is the argument with the NCAA, which has two sub pieces. (1)Did Stallions himself attend games in person to advance scout? If he did that’s a clear violation, and Stallions should be punished. (2) Did Stallions pay people to record games for him? If he did, is that a violation of the rules? TBD. And in both cases if guilty, is anyone on the coaching staff aware/directing that behavior or was he a rogue actor? If no one else is aware the last question is did the new rule about head coach accountability apply here or did Harbaugh do enough “please don’t cheat” training/directives to let him off the hook there.

Separately from that is the B1G argument that if Stallions did any of this regardless of NCAA violations, that it violates the sportsmanship standards. Their punishment of the University (note not Harbaugh directly) was to deprive the team of their head coach for the final three games.

So that said, I think the arguments to be made are to paint Stallions as the lone actor, prove it, and show Harbaugh has a track record for demanding integrity from his staff. At which point the NCAA probably accepts firing Stallions and maybe a fine or some scholarship reductions and moves on. Wrist slapped. For the B1G there’s honestly not much we can do because the discretion lies with the commissioner who interprets the rules how he wants. Maybe we get the restraining order but at best we are probably just delaying JH’s suspension. Maybe the NCAA investigation wraps and clear his name and Petiti can retract but given that it is a wrist slap of its own my guess is the punishment stands. The rest of the everybody does it stuff, while true, won’t move the needle with the above. 

then I think we should air all the dirty laundry and watch the conference eat itself alive while skipping off to the SEC or to form a new super conference like Heath Ledger’s joker walking away from the building explosion in our sullied nurses uniform.

quit whining and get a better team, B1G

There's a couple arguments that might not move the needle ("everybody does it" is generally not a very good argument to make). But good thing Michigan has an array of arguments to use as to why, to quote Woodson, "it's all bullshit".

There is a big difference between legal arguments and public messaging.

The public messaging should be a simple message that you want drilled into people's brains.   So far, I don't see that.  It's too cluttered.


 

We are for now.  At this point in the investigation, it is not in Michigan's interest to be hanging our hat on the "merits" arguments -- i.e., that we didn't do anything wrong.  We don't know that to the case any more than the Big Ten doesn't know that we did something wrong.  If we rely on a merits argument, we open ourselves up to the ultimate facts being different from what we had supposed.  In addition, that line of argument also risks undercutting the point that it is premature at this point to decide anything.

Beyond that, relying on the merits poses a risk that the decision makers (the Big Ten now, the NCAA later) will simply disagree, as the Big Ten has already suggested.  If we lean too heavily now into the argument that we did nothing wrong, we risk a determination that we not only did something wrong, but condone it.

In addition, some of the arguments you raised are not strongly supported by the text of the NCAA rules.  For example, there is a very strong argument based on the text of the rules that the prohibition on advance (not "advanced") in-person scouting applies only to certain people, and that non-staff paid by Stallions are not covered by the rule.  That is one merits argument we made, but mostly to plant that flag for later.  However, there is no support in the rule itself that the prohibition on (certain) in-person advance scouting was based on financial advantage.  Yes, the history of the rule suggests that may have been a driving factor, but that's not what it says, and even if it did, we are exactly the type of institution that a rule based on financial advantage would seek to regulate.  Similarly, rules that allow coaches to trade knowledge do not allow all forms of advance scouting.  Thus, there is are logical points to be made regarding the equivalency (and Michigan made some of those points), but that does not mean what Stallions is alleged to have done is necessarily permitted.

Our best arguments for now are the ones in Michigan's official reply.  The Big Ten shouldn't do anything now because the investigation has only just begun, Michigan is committed to fair play and will accept appropriate punishment when and if wrongdoing is proven, the rules *might* allow at least some of the rumored activity (maybe much more than some), there are logical problems with assuming competitive advantage, particularly absent factual support, and the Big Ten lacks authority to do what is has just attempted to do.  All of these are true, and should have been enough for the Big Ten to tap the brakes.  The day will come when we can lean into merits arguments about how the rules apply to the then-known facts, but that day is not yet here.

Williams & Connolly are great lawyers. Why don't you email them your thoughts? 

I’d say Michigans argument at this stage should be about the procedural irregularities. The conference has bylaws. Those bylaws are a contract between the conference and its member universities. If the conference is failing to follow those bylaws, they’re breaching that contract.

As it stands, the Big Ten has not opened an investigation into Michigan. So Michigan is not in a position to plead their innocence with the Big Ten, Michigan is merely asking that the Big Ten follow its own rules. That’s all Michigan needs to do with regards to the Big Ten. 
 

Michigan hasn’t even been formally accused by the NCAA, which is still in the investigation stage. Once Michigan is formally accused (notice of allegations) is when you would expect Michigan to make those arguments with the NCAA.

I am a lawyer, and here's what I say in answer to OP's question. UM has hired outstanding lawyers with outstanding legal minds who have thoroughly researched and thought about what the best arguments are. As much time as any of us has spent thinking about this and analyzing the Big Ten rules, they've spent more. I trust them to make the best arguments on Friday. We should all trust them

I would like Sports Reporters to ask the BIG coaches that are trying to hammer Michigan a couple of questions:

1. Do you have someone on your staff that collects opposing team's signals?

2. Do you know where they get their information?

Bonus question; Do you have or have you ever had/seen Michigan’s signals?

—past precedent regarding advanced in-person scouting dictated a decision from the NCAA resulted in punishment for said infraction to the tune of a single half for past violator

If we can document that, it would be incredibly helpful.

Maybe we should stop using "due process" since that applies to the state. I don't believe the Big10 would be considered the state, though I'm not familiar with any relevant precedent. 

This is not an issue based on logic, procedure or precedence. It is simply an attack on the UM program and Harbaugh by a few competitors who want to publicly diminish, and hopefully derail, the momentum in Ann Arbor. It’s Haterade by Jive Turkeys.

Warde put it on the table yesterday in very clear terms:

“… the Big Ten decided to penalize Coach Harbaugh without knowing all the facts, and I find that completely unethical, insulting to a well-established process within the NCAA, and an assault on the rights of everyone (especially the Big Ten) to be judged by a fair and complete investigation.

“Not liking someone or another university or believing without any evidence that they knew or saying someone should have known without an investigation is not grounds to remove someone from their position before the NCAA process has reached a conclusion through a full NCAA investigative process.”

Here's the defense I'd use.

Connor Stalions does in game intelligence. That means figure out what the other team is planning to do. And we thought he was really good at his job.

Turns out he is the IT guy who wasn't actually doing his job, he was contracting out a bunch of Indian IT guys to do his job. Stalions was so good at predicting the other team's strategy because in his own time he was doing something wrong.

He wrote a 600 page Michigan Manifesto about how he was guaranteed to be the next head coach at Michigan. Spending 15k a year on his silly little poorly run operation is literally not a dime compared to the 15 million salary that he genuinely to his core believed he was bound to get as the head coach at Michigan.

Stalions is a weirdo. We were notified of his behavior and immediately suspended him.

That's the actual defense. As for the PI firm and the overbearing enforcement, that's all attack.

Good question. No, we aren’t largely using the best argument. Stop making procedural arguments. Those are technical and mostly unpersuasive to outsiders — they come off as excuses.  
 

The best argument is that the scouting rule is a stupid, arcane rule that is widely abused and disregarded, and the only thing that Michigan did is to have kids use iphones. All teams steal and share signals, which is EASY to do. We’re dealing with a distinction without a difference. A technical violation. 
 

Whenever I employ thus argument to normies who don’t understand, they’re always like oh yeah that’s such a dumb fake scandal — literally anyone can record games played in public and on tv, so why is this even an issue? 

I think we should file a civil suit against the PI firm and possibly the Big 10 and NCAA for defamation, or whatever, which then gives us access to legal tools like subpoena, discovery, etc.  We have no legal maneuvering against the Big 10 and NCAA without resorting to court other than obtaining a TOR.  The NCAA would have a hard time in court asserting that stealing signs by studying TV broadcasts is ok, but by I-phone is against the rules.

As most know here, the B10 Conference and the NCAA are both private organizations that Michigan has voluntarily chosen to join.  Pretty tough to make an anti-trust claim.

Petitti seems to be putting a lot of weight on player safety with no evidence that player safety is compromised.  " Think of the kids!"

In addition, since sign "stealing" is allowed and widespread, why does the manner in which the signs are discovered so damned important? Doesn't the fact that teams are actively seeking out and figuring out other teams' signs a danger to player safety?

For which case are you arguing?  The TRO issue is one of time.  Why do you need a restraint now and why briefly do thnk you could ultimately win with a basic argument as opposed to waiting for the full trial.  The TRO procedure is independent the actual trial.

In the actual trial/pretrial, you get argue the letter of rule (does it really mean you can't hire someone else to collect video and then put it on a public server (any server without a password).  What if you never used the data?  What if the videos were terrible and without real content.  What if it was used to check your ability decode without actually be used to prepare for game.

I really think JH didn't know because CS didn't find anything usable.  The appropriate punishment is a fine or probation. 

I think we should put Biff Poggi in charge of our legal defense.  He would show up, look Pettiti in the eye and say, “Quit whining.  Get better teams.”

I'm thinking that the best argument is that, at this point, there is no actual evidence of wrongdoing. What is the evidence? CS bought tickets? He transferred them to various people? Some of them appeared to hold up their cellphones?  Somebody who looked like him and a million other 25-30 year olds was on the CMU sidelines? He stood next to UM coaches? So.....,,?  Got any proof of what he did with it,? The argument that, eve if he did what he is suspected of doing isn't a technical rules violation doesn't preclude it being a violation of sportsmanship. I say, make them prove everything.

Here’s an interesting tid bit.  Somewhere I read on this blog that the assigned Judge on this case is Judge Timothy Connors.  If that’s true, I car pooled with him to WSU Law in 1979-1980 from Ann Arbor.  Has I recall, he was UM undergraduate and a big Michigan fan.  If I recall correctly, I think his uncle was,Dr. Gerald O’Connor who was the team physician for the football team for 40 years.  He served with Bump Eliot through Carr and died in 2004.  I judge Connor’s prior to taking the bench had a pretty robust plaintiffs practice.  He’s a smart guy and will be very evenhanded.